Herald of Civil Procedure
EN
main-photo

We in a citing index:

The Main Innovations of Recast Regulation (EU) on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

V.V. Terekhov,
Master in EU Law (LL.M.), Postgraduate Student of Vilnius University (Lithuania), 
Lecturer of the Department of Civil and Arbitration Procedure of the Omsk State University


In the present article the author deals with the main changes to the Recast Regulation (EU) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments that were adopted in 2012 and will be in force from the beginning of 2015. It is noted that researches in the field of European harmonization of procedural law are important from both theoretical grounds (adoption of EU’s experience is possible in the development of future bases of Eurasian integration) and practical ones (proceedings in EU Member States may involve individuals or legal entities domiciled in Russia). Herewith the Regulation under analysis is of particular interest since it appears to be a fundamental EU act in the sphere of civil procedure. The recent amendments and additions to it may be divided into four groups: 1) those that clarify the sphere of interaction between the proceedings in accordance with Regulation and arbitration (the latter being excluded from the scope of the act); 2) those that partly extend the scope of the Regulation to include parties, not domiciled in the EU; 3) those that complement rules on parallel proceedings (lis pendens) and related actions by establishing jurisdictional priority for the court chosen by the parties before the court that was first seized of an action, and also by allowing to apple the named rules in case the proceedings emerge in a third state; 4) those that reform the process of judgments’ recognition and enforcement by abolishing the necessity to receive a preliminary declaration of enforceability (exequatur) in a requested state. Within the article both positive and negative aspects of the reforms are mentioned; the attention is also made to the legal gaps and omissions the authors of the reforms did. 

Keywords: Regulation No. 1215/2012; Regulation No. 44/2001; jurisdiction in cross-border cases; arbitration; lis pendens; agreements on jurisdiction; recognition and enforcement of judgments; abolition of exequatur.

References 

   Storme M. Improving Access to Justice in Europe // Teka Komisji Prawniczej. Vol. 3. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego w Lublinie, 2010. P. 209–210. Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters // OJ. 2001. L 012. P. 1–64 (available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=C ELEX:32001R0044:en:HTML). 
  Cadet F. Main features of the revised Brussels I Regulation // Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht / European Journal of Business Law / Revue Européenne de Droit Économique. 2013. Bd. 6. S. 218–220. 
   Franzina P. The Recast of the Brussels I Regulation: Old and New Features of the European Regime on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments (http://lettersblogatory. com/2013/06/27). 
   Baumgartner S.P. Recent Reforms in EU Law: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments // Judicature. 2014. Vol. 97. P. 189, 194 (available at: http://papers. ssrn.com/abstract_id=2527646).    Litvinsky D.V. Novyi «format» Bryussel’skikh pravil, reguliruyushchikh priznanie i ispolenie sudebnykh reshenii mezhdu gosudarstvami ES [A New «Format» of Brussels Rules, Governing Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements between EU Member States] (in Russian) // Russian Yearbook of Civil and Arbitration Procedure. No. 3 (2004) / Ed. by V.V. Yarkov. St. Petersburg, 2005. P. 342–344. 
 Tsyrat G. Reforma protsedur priznaniya i ispolneniya sudebnykh reshenii po grazhdanskim i kommercheskim delam v Evropeiskom Soyuze [Reform of the Procedures of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters in the European Union] (in Russian) // Law and Life. 2013. No. 8/3. P. 290 (available at: http://www.legeasiviata.in.ua/archive/2013/8-3/72.pdf). 
  Litvinsky D. Eksperimental’nyi samolet evropeiskogo pravoporyadka [Experimental Plane of European Legal Order] (in Russian) (http://avocatlitvinski.livejournal. com/23144.html). 
  Kramer X.E. Cross-Border Enforcement and the Brussels I-bis Regulation: Towards a New Balance between Mutual Trust and National Control over Fundamental Rights // Netherlands International Law Review. 2013. Vol. 60. Issue 3. P. 347–348, 354 (available  at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_ id=2372701). 
   Reid G., Robinson P. A Brave New World for EU Jurisdiction Rules? The Brussels I Regulation Recast Emerges // Linklaters Newsletter. 2012. Dec. P. 1–3. Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) // OJ. 2012. L 351. P. 1–32 (available at: http://eurlex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012R1215&from=EN).    
   Häberling W., Schulz H. Key changes of the revised Brussels I Regulation (http:// bit.ly/1q02trC). Garvey S. Reform of the Brussels Regulation: are we nearly there yet? (http://link. ac/3oLo3). 
  Clifford Ph., Browne O. Reform of the Brussels Regulation – Latest Developments and the «Arbitration Exception» (http://lw.com/thoughtLeadership/Reform-of-the- Brussels-Regulation). 
  Camilleri S.P. Recital 12 of the Recast Regulation: A New Hope? // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2013. Vol. 62. Issue 4. P. 916. 
  Dyrda Ł. Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters under the Regulation no. 1215/2012: Between Common Grounds of Jurisdiction and Divergent National Rules // The Interaction of National Legal Systems: Convergence or Divergence? International Conference of PhD Students and Young Researchers (Vilnius, 25–26 April 2013): Conference Papers. Vilnius University, 2013. P. 87–89 (available at: http://www. tf.vu.lt/dokumentai/Admin/Doktorant%C5%B3_konferencija/Dyrda.pdf). Reforms to Brussels Regulation Now Finalised (http://hsfnotes.com/ litigation/2012/12/12/reforms-to-brussels-regulation-now-finalised/). 
  Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State // OJ. L 074. P. 0074–0079 (available at: http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0007:EN:HTML). 
   Silvestri E. Beskonechnye reformy ital’yanskogo grazhdanskogo protsessa [Never Ending Reforms of Italian Civil Procedure] (in Russian) // European Civil Procedure and Enforcement Proceedings: Collection of Materials of International Scientific and Practical Conference, Kazan, 25 March 2011.      James S. Recast Brussels I Regulation Enhances Jurisdiction Agreements in the EU (http://www.cliffordchance.com/briefings/2013/01/recast_brussels_iregulationenhance. html). Hradilová V. The Free Movement of Judgments within the European Union: Process of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (http://www.law.muni.cz/ sborniky/ dp08/files/pdf/mezinaro/hradilova.pdf). 
  Council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions. Tampere European Council, 15–16 October 1999 (http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ef2d2264.html), paras. 33–34. 
  The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union (2005/C 53/01) // OJ. 2005. C 53. P. 27–28, 30-32 (paras. 3.2, 3.4) (available at: http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:053:0001:0014:EN:PDF). 
  The Stockholm Programme: An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens (2010/C 115/01) // OJ. 2010. C 115. P. 11–13 (para. 3.1.2) (available at: http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:115:0001:0038:en:PDF). 
  Carrasco J. Brussels Regulation Recasting (http://bit.ly/1mHiRvV). 
  Vėbraitė V. Introduction to European civil procedure: Study material. Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2014. P. 58–59, 66. Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure // OJ. 2007. L 199. P. 1–22 (available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3200 7R0861&from=en). 
  Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure // OJ. 2006. L 399. P. 1–32 (available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE X:32006R1896&from=EN). 
  Storskrubb E. Civil Procedure and EU Law: A Policy Area Uncovered. Oxford University Press, 2008. P. 212. 
  Litvinsky D. Mezhdu stranami ES ekzekvatury bol’she ne budet’ [There Will Be No Exequatur between the EU Member States Anymore] (in Russian) (http://avocatlitvinski. livejournal.com/21420.html). 
 Zhoffrua K. Novyi Reglament ES o podsudnosti, priznanii i ispolnenii sudebnykh reshenii po grazhdanskim i kommercheskim delam – shag k okonchatel’noi otmene ekzekvatury v Evrope [New Regulation (EU) on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters – a Step towards Final Abolition of Exequatur in Europe] // Statute. 2013. No. 11. P. 131–132.   
  Elmer M.B. Brief Considerations on the Harmonisation of Civil Procedure in Europe and Worldwide // Uniform Law Review. 2003. Vol. 8. Issue 1–2. P. 461. 

Information about the author 

  Terekhov V.V. (Omsk) – Master in EU Law (LL.M.), Postgraduate Student of Vilnius University (Lithuania), Lecturer of the Department of Civil and Arbitration Procedure of the Omsk State University (644065, Russian Federation, Omsk, 50 Let Profsoyuzov st., 100/1; e-mail: victor@law-faculty.net).

 el_.png   it_.png   book.png


V.V. Terekhov